“The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel for the ACLJ. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud but violated California law for the sake of imposing expensive new environmental regulations on California businesses.”

French said, “UCLA’s actions were so extreme that its own Academic Freedom Committee unanimously expressed its concern about the case.”

…

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles alleges the school violated Enstrom’s constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments.

Enstrom’s Ph.D. from Stanford is in physics. He’s worked in the university system for more than 30 years. His difficulties started after his peer-reviewed inhalation toxicology report titled “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and total Mortality Among Elderly Californians 1973-2002,” the claim explains.

That study “found no relationship between PM2.5 (particulate matter) and total mortality in California,” the lawsuit said.

Enstrom then contradicted the other researchers in testimony to the state legislature and further exposed the fraudulent credentials of Hien T. Tran, “a key CARB scientist and lead author of the October 24, 2008 CARB report on PM2.5 and premature death.

“Mr. Tran’s research report served as the primary public health justification for a new diesel vehicle regulatory scheme approved by CARB … Dr. Enstrom’s statements brought to light that Mr. Tran’s Ph.D. was not awarded by the University of California at Davis as Tran claimed. Mr. Tran subsequently admitted that he purchased his Ph.D. at a cost of $1,000 from ‘Thornhill University,’ a fake institution and Internet diploma mill based at a UPS store in New York.”

The complaint also asserted that members of a university committee had been serving indefinite terms, in violation of state rules limiting terms to three years.

California Ignores Scientific Protests, Passes New Diesel Regulations

John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. –

January 1, 2009

Claiming their action will save thousands of Californians’ lives and reduce health care expenditures, the California Air Resources Board has imposed new emission regulations on diesel trucks despite objections from an array of experts about the regulatory process and the credibility of the science.

Vigorous protests of the new regulations and the claims of benefits were submitted by Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA and others, amounting to more than 100 pages of written criticisms of the CARB scientific process and the studies that CARB claimed showed thousands of deaths from diesel small particles.

The year-long process of development of the new regulations resulted in some very revealing public commentary, accusations of complicity in the scientific review process, and even misconduct by CARB officials.

In the biggest scandal, opposition scientists found the lead author of the key study by CARB had faked his Ph.D. and lacked expertise in air pollution research. In addition, CARB hired reviewers to review their own papers, naturally resulting in approval of the scientific studies that claimed the death and health effects.

Dr. Henry Miller, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, in a May 27, 2008 essay in The Washington Times, declared the new regulations, called the “Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan” (GMERP), an overreach by CARB based on bad science that will drive business out of California.

Miller cited a large and detailed 2005 study by Enstrom, who has a real Ph.D. from Stanford and a Masters in Public Health from his current university, UCLA. Enstrom found no death effect in the period between 1983 and 2002 from fine particulate matter in the air.

In any fair analysis of science, such a study disproves the claims of CARB of thousands of deaths. Miller pointed out the harm to the California economy created by the new CARB rules will induce additional deaths due to the “income effect.” Miller, a physician and public health researcher, relates that it is well-established that premature deaths come to people suffering economic hardship and deprivation.

In a valiant effort to push back on the CARB diesel regulations, Enstrom and others provided commentary and analysis in 2008 that showed the CARB scientific process was poisoned with bias and insider dealing, including a review panel that was clearly not objective and was set up to give CARB what it wanted.

During the effort to urge CARB to reconsider the bad effects for little benefit, the Enstrom group found out the lead author for CARB on the study, Hien Tran, in fact did not have the Ph.D. claimed by CARB in its major study of air pollution and that he had authored no significant studies in air pollution toxicology.

On December 10, 2008, in a last effort to change CARB votes and ask for reconsideration of the new regulations with a more disciplined peer review and scientific process, Enstrom authored a letter to CARB reminding the board of the public comments submitted already by many distinguished scientists.

Enstrom noted CARB had not adequately responded to the many criticisms in the public comments raising process and evidentiary questions and refutations of the CARB claims of thousands of deaths. Submitters included Joel Schwartz from the American Enterprise Institute, Joseph Suchecki of the Engine Manufacturers Association, Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar, a prominent and nationally known epidemiologist, Dr. Fred Lipfert, also a national figure in public health, and Dr. John Dunn (the author of this essay), a 30-plus-year epidemiologist from UCLA.

They all asserted the CARB death projections were the product of an excessive zeal at CARB and unacceptably weak research on current California air pollution health effects. Moreover, the commentators pointed out the GMERP rules would impose new regulatory and economic burdens on industry and business that would result in hardship for the consuming public and harm the failing and frail California economy.

The public commentary, mostly from scientists and more than 140 pages, was negative, with the expected supportive letters from environmental organizations.

In his December 10 letter, Enstrom pointed out CARB’s disregard of public scientific commentary, the biased nature of the CARB consultants, lack of scientific qualifications of CARB lead author Hien Tran, and reasons why CARB should reconstitute its review process and committee members and restudy its scientific reports and projections of deaths.

In another December 2008 letter to CARB board members, Enstrom, Anthony Fucaloro, a 35-year chemist from Claremont McKenna University, Matt Malkan, a 25-year astrophysicist from UCLA, and Robert Phalen, a 35-year air pollution toxicologist from UC Irvine, pointed out their concerns:

General Concerns Regarding Air Pollution Health Effects and Regulations

1) Pollution levels are much lower today than in previous decades and current health risks are small.

2) Small epidemiologic associations are often spurious, rather than cause-and-effect relationships.

3) Regulations designed to solve one problem may have consequences that do more harm than good.

4) Scientists who are not popular activists are often marginalized and their important research is ignored.

5) Conflict of interest regarding power and funding exists between regulators and conforming scientists.

6) New regulations must be based on a fair evaluation of all available evidence from diverse sources.

1) Authors have no relevant peer-reviewed publications and lead author has misrepresented his “Ph.D.”

2) Report and public comments were never shown to outside reviewers as stated in Executive Summary.

3) Five independent sources indicate no current relationship between PM2.5 and deaths in California.

4) California has fourth lowest total age-adjusted death rate among US states and few “premature deaths.”

5) Diesel toxicity and fine particulate air pollution in California are currently at record low levels.

6) Before approving new diesel regulations, CARB should fully evaluate PM2.5 and deaths in California.

Conclusion

Important epidemiologic and toxicological evidence does not support adverse health effects of diesel claimed by CARB and new diesel regulations should be postponed until the above issues are fully and fairly evaluated.

The CARB board passed the rules unanimously. So much for the democratic process and scientific debate that results in good public policy.

The fraud within the “green movement” is astounding. There seems to be no end in the revelations of corruption at every level of academia and government. There needs to be serious consequences for these types of actions.

The lack of credibility within academia; federal, state and local government; federal and state government regulatory agencies; and needless to say the green institutions is mind boggling. Continued unchecked fraud will/has destroyed the foundations of science, academia, and the government itself as well as a profound effect on the economy. This sh*t seriously needs to be addressed.

I once read something and I will paraphrase here: “It’s too late for diplomacy but too early to start shooting.” ;-)

“The university said it used appropriate procedures in dealing with Enstrom.

But a letter to Enstrom from the university’s associate dean for academic programs, Hilary Godwin, noted, “Please be advised that you will not be reappointed Aug. 30, 2010. As previously notified, the reason for non-reappointment is the faculty of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences has determined your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the department.”

I think this will become more common throughout education, K-12 and higher ed. In K-12 the classroom compliance mechanism is the effective teacher evaluation which has a definition of what is effective that amounts to doing what you are told. By a principal or central office super who knows themselves that all future promotions, and they can be quite lucrative, require pushing a political vision for schools and the classroom.

In higher ed AACU and the accreditors are actively pushing a political vision that rejects the historical transmission of knowledge. In fact I have AACU documents that are part of their Making Excellence Inclusive Initiative that require a drastic change in the nature of higher ed in order to achieve Equitable Educational Outcomes with All Students. That’s a lot of official pressure on any administrator. Especially an ambitious one.

There are also lots of official presentations that occasionally get posted on public servers on how to use the grant pursuit process of the modern research university to influence and corrupt what is going on in other departments. Beyond the terms of the science grants themselves, the colleges of education are frequently bringing in the largest outside grants on campus. No overhead but it is tied to influencing what goes on in either K-12 or other parts of higher ed. One rather cocky dean announced that no one was willing to pay to build a new chemistry lab but if the chemistry prof would advocate for changing how science was taught, it would be easy for him to get a $500,000 minigrant and that would count towards tenure and subsequent promotions. That same tactless dean talked about going to every head of a state college or university and telling them they would be judged on the ability to bring in outside research grants. And what types of advocacy were easy money to obtain.

When public policy is a form of rent seeking and you need academia to play along, the pressure on these profs is enormous. Instead of “Pay to Play”, it is “Play along or find another career.” And if you play life can be good at the expense of others.

EPA clings to the notion that any tiny particle, regardless of biological activity, chemical or physical makeup, will cause mortality. The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies of Science, as early as 1998 urged EPA to investigate which particles are most harmful, or least harmful, which EPA has studiously avoided doing. EPA says there isn’t enough evidence to make such judgments, despite spending $50 million of research dollars every year since about 1998, ostensibly to make these judgments.

So it isn’t that surprising that Enstrom was able to show no relationship between PM2.5 and mortality, because PM2.5 is likely a mixture of harmful particles and non-harmful ones. EPA needs him to be fired, because otherwise his critique could be characterized as that of a respected scientist.

Unfortunately for Californians, diesel PM2.5 is likely the most harmful type of small particle. Lots of research has shown that components of diesel emissions such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are biologically active and create a number of problems inside human lung cells, leading to both cardiovascular disease as well as lung cancer.

A 2011 study found that reduction of black carbon, which in the US and western Europe is mainly a diesel emission, extended lives by 4 to 9 times more than reducing an equivalent amount of PM2.5 (which is the mix of all tiny particles in the air, less than 2.5 microns in diameter). Here is the link:

Let’s give Dr. Enstrom our support, because he’s been railroaded, but don’t say that ALL tiny particles are harmless. Plenty of evidence that diesel emissions can cause people to die earlier than they would have without diesel exposure. Ask you want to see more.

The July 2012 issue of PopSci is depressingly in the can for climate change. I don’t mind the tech prototypes and whatnot, but the puff piece on how ‘victimized’ Michael Mann is just about made me gag. Reminds me of how Chris Matthews did everything but hump Obama’s leg during the 2008 election.

Miller, a physician and public health researcher, relates that it is well-established that premature deaths come to people suffering economic hardship and deprivation.
=============
Something that is never accounted for in government decision making. The number of people they kill each year to service the ever increasing cost of government.

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

I have found several legitimate, serious sources of that story that don’t have the WND’s taint of idiocy and gullibility. Quoting WND on anything is like referencing the National Enquirer: sure, sometimes you’ll get a scandalous scoop before other media catches on, but 99.99% of what you’ll find there is either a rehash from legitimate media or outright nonsense.

I propose that all diesel engines in California be immediately stopped. Particularly, fire engines and delivery trucks. How long do you think they will last. They would only be complying with the CARB ruling.

kim2ooo says:
June 16, 2012 at 8:54 am
“The university said it used appropriate procedures in dealing with Enstrom.
“…the reason for non-reappointment is the faculty of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences has determined your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the department.”

So, UCLA’s take on it is that the department’s academic mission is promulgating academic and governmental fraud.

“Please be advised that you will not be reappointed Aug. 30, 2010. As previously notified, the reason for non-reappointment is the faculty of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences has determined your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the department.”

Which is exactly what, pray tell? The lead author of the CARB study BOUGHT his Phd for $1000? CARB authors reviewed their own papers?

Unfortunately, the requirements and rules for diesel burning trucks that are drawn up in California spread throughout North America. The manufacturers have found that many of these requirements are not attainable. Caterpillar was forced to withdraw from the North American truck engine market because they felt they couldn’t meet the new standards. Trucking firms across North America will tell you that dependability and fuel economy have suffered because of these new rules and wonder if the ultimate aim of California regulators is to curtail any commerce that moves by truck.

Something that the main article doesn’t note, but which in very strong likelihood played a major (quite possibly THE major) role in Prof. Enstrom’s treatment, was his massive 2003 study on secondhand smoke with Geoffrey Kabat. Their research covered the largest database ever used in spousal secondhand smoke studies and basically concluded that even living for decades with an active smoker in the house had virtually no effect on the lung cancer or heart disease rates of nonsmokers.

Surprisingly the BMJ published their work and an absolute firestorm ensued. As pointed out in a previous thread, although their research was published in 2003, it was specifically excluded from the massive 2006 Surgeon Generals Report on secondhand smoke with the excuse that it had been published “too late” to be included. Of course the Report included a number of studies from 2004 and 2005 … but those were ones in favor of the Report’s predetermined conclusion.

Ever since then Prof. Enstrom has been walking around with a big target painted on his back in the very highly antismoking-oriented U of CA system. The CARB situation was, as they say, “an accident waiting to happen.”

Remember: in the case of BOTH Global Warming and Antismoking research you’re dealing with a double-barreled threat: researchers who are not just corrupted by money, grants, prestige, and power; but also by idealism: they skew their results, consciously or unconsciously, because they believe certain types of results are “for the greater good,” “err on the side of the angels,” and “can’t cause any harm.”

Something that the main article doesn’t note, but which in very strong likelihood played a major (quite possibly THE major) role in Prof. Enstrom’s treatment, was his massive 2003 study on secondhand smoke with Geoffrey Kabat. Their research covered the largest database ever used in spousal secondhand smoke studies and basically concluded that even living for decades with an active smoker in the house had virtually no effect on the lung cancer or heart disease rates of nonsmokers.

Surprisingly the BMJ published their work and an absolute firestorm ensued. As pointed out in a previous thread, although their research was published in 2003, it was specifically excluded from the massive 2006 Surgeon Generals Report on secondhand smoke with the excuse that it had been published “too late” to be included. Of course the Report included a number of studies from 2004 and 2005 … but those were ones in favor of the Report’s predetermined conclusion.

Ever since then Prof. Enstrom has been walking around with a big target painted on his back in the very highly antismoking-oriented U of CA system. The CARB situation was, as they say, “an accident waiting to happen” and Enstrom had some VERY powerful enemies gunning for him.

Remember: in the case of BOTH Global Warming and Antismoking research you’re dealing with a double-barreled threat: researchers who are not just corrupted by money, grants, prestige, and power; but also by idealism: they skew their results, consciously or unconsciously, because they believe certain types of results are “for the greater good,” “err on the side of the angels,” and “can’t cause any harm.”

I went in research of Hien T. Tran
[‘” Soon after that meeting, we had confirmed that Hien Tran – lead author and coordinator of the study justifying the rules – lied about having a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California Davis.

Our subsequent reporting showed senior air board officials from Chairwoman Mary Nichols down knew of Tran’s academic fraud before the Dec. 12, 2008, vote but chose not to inform the public, the media or most of the board members who voted for the diesel rules.

The outrageousness of this deceit is finally being acknowledged. One of the board members who was kept in the dark – Fresno cardiologist John Telles – learned of the deception earlier this fall. Now Telles and another board member, San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, are calling for suspension of the diesel rules.”]

Interesting links to ‘research’ on diesel particulates. I presume had this case been about the 2011 WHO study – you would have referenced the CARB study to show how these particulates are harmful?

Can you give a good solid reason why anyone should believe these ‘studies’? It seems that whenever any of these research papers are looked at in detail – the authors won’t release data or methods, the peer reviewers are pal reviewers and everyone is munificently remunerated for the research and given further research by political masters.

In short it is becoming more and more difficult to trust researchers and academia they have become servants of their paymasters.

The entire point of ‘tenure’ was to ensure that academics were not removed from post for unpopular research results. It follows that to retain academic freedom, a professor with tenure should also not be remunerated more for popular research results. Tenure should remove both carrot and stick. Yet now we see ‘rock star’ researchers earning huge sums for ‘the right results’. Science has sold its right to be trusted – but the eventual cost of that loss of trust will be far greater than these politicized researchers can conceive.

The initial reason for termination of Dr. Enstrom was given by EHS Chair Jackson as, “programmatically, your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department and your research output and ability to secure continued funding does not meet the minimum requirements of the Department.”

But in the subsequent review, Dr. Gold found, on this particular justification, that “Dr. Enstrom’s research is fully aligned with the department’s mission. By its very name, the Department of Environmental Health Sciences [EHS] embraces the research foci of Dr. Enstrom, i.e., determining the effect of diesel exhaust fine particulate matter on overall mortality in California …. ”

This makes it obvious that Dr. Enstrom was not let go because his research was not aligned with the “academic” mission of the department, but because his research was not aligned with the “political” mission of the department. What more evidence do you need to see that environmental extremists have corrupted academia?

I took the time to read the legal complaint. Wow. Quite an eye opener. From what I read: He exposes that CARB lead scientists is a fraud. That oversight board members hold their positions illegally, one of which is a Uni colleague. He publishes a major study showing the CARB science is wrong. The regulations are simply a waste of money that will hurt the economy (and thus potentially kill more people than they save).

From the complaint: He is self-funded. He brings in the money for his own research and the Uni pays him a salary from this, while taking a cut for themselves. The Uni doubled their cut, diverted and depleted his funds without telling him, so there was no money for his salary, then wouldn’t provide him an accounting. When discovered, they wouldn’t pay back the money, so he got no salary. Then they applied a series of rules to fire him, that have never been applied to any other staff member. The folks doing the firing, they don’t meet the standards either, so if applied evenly they would have to fire themselves. One of the people voting to dismiss is the same colleague exposed as holding an illegal regulatory oversight position. As far as his research not being aligned, his area of research is the lead area the Uni department advertises.

EPA clings to the notion that any tiny particle, regardless of biological activity, chemical or physical makeup, will cause mortality. The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies of Science, as early as 1998 urged EPA to investigate which particles are most harmful, or least harmful, which EPA has studiously avoided doing. EPA says there isn’t enough evidence to make such judgments, despite spending $50 million of research dollars every year since about 1998, ostensibly to make these judgments.

So it isn’t that surprising that Enstrom was able to show no relationship between PM2.5 and mortality, because PM2.5 is likely a mixture of harmful particles and non-harmful ones. EPA needs him to be fired, because otherwise his critique could be characterized as that of a respected scientist……”””””

John, I found your post to be very informative. It sounds like there is confusion, but some data suggesting diesel carbon particulates relate to lung diseases; but the death of someone from such a cause can never be proven. For me, it is not an academic question, as I lost my only brother to a cause related to diesel fumes in the lungs. He did NOT die of lung cancer, and had an alcoholism factor involved as well.(He did contract tractor work for other farmers).

But California particle pollution laws, have already made California air “cleaner” than it ever was before “white men” ever saw the place; so the CARB position is assinine; and simply beurocratic dictatorship. CARB and EPA gave us the mandated MTBE/ETBE “oxygenated” fuel scandal; and when backed up on that, to where they couldn’t sustain that mythology; they still dictated the ethanol option, even though major energy companies have already proved, they can meet and exceed ANY and all California Gasoline standards, without Oxygenated fuel.
Adding oxygen to a gasoline fuel, either an ether or an alcohol, is equivalent to adding ordinary water to the gasoline. The BTU obtained by burning H2, into H2O, is exactly the amount lost by turning a parrafin into the ether or alcohol equivalent; so you end up having to burn MORE fuel, which increases the CO2 output from the engine. The hydrogen combustion gives more energy than the carbon combustion, so oxygenating a saturated hydrocarbon molecule is simply insane..

Well considering the educational credentials of whatsername; the CARB dictator; insanity in California Government is endemic.

so you end up having to burn MORE fuel, which increases the CO2 output from the engine.
==========
The exact same thing happened when they mandated air pumps be added to cars. The effect was to pump air into the tail pipe, and thus reduce the PPM of pollutants out the back end, while cutting mileage and increasing the total pollutants by 10-15%.

George Smith wrote, “EPA clings to the notion that any tiny particle, regardless of biological activity, chemical or physical makeup, will cause mortality”

This stance has enabled them to equate the quiet burning of a few leaves wrapped in a thin sheet of paper producing PM 2.5 to the myriad industrial, chemical, and automotive processes that produce them (along with a lot of other pollutants) during deadly air pollution episodes. When I’ve written about this in the past I’ve spoken about it being similar to taking a teaspoon of sugar crystals and claiming that it’s just as deadly as a teaspoon of arsenic crystals because they’re both the same size. Heh, of course they then COMPOUND this basic problem by ignoring EPA guidelines and comparing one-hour measurements with 24 hour guidelines as though they were the same thing.

When university research is run by ideologues rather than science … the science is in very serious trouble.

Slightly OT but relevant to smoking. My father died at age 68 or 69 from cancer (not lung cancer) and had a cigarette in his hand every minute that I can remember. Both of my sisters were the same so family gatherings were miserable to me (non-smoker) caught up in a small closed room. It was usually hard to see across the room.

My father’s mother died at about age 42 – 45 from lung cancer. She never smoked or allowed anyone to smoke at her house. His sister died at early 50’s from lung cancer and never smoked or allowed it around her. From a non-smoker view, secondhand smoke stinks. Now pipe tobacco has a nice aroma. But the science regarding an issue affecting public policy should be just that, science and not advocacy science. I believe the tobacco issue was advocacy science.

While smoking causes an unpleasant atmosphere for those who don’t smoke, I’m uncertain as to the validity of the science. Would it be fair to use advocacy science to address unpleasant odors from someone who doesn’t bath or someone who farts often? How about women who put on so much perfume that you move to the rear of a different checkout line at the grocery store to escape them? These issues are personal choices of an individual that has an effect on others. I would not say that diesel exhaust has a pleasant smell but transportation is an important benefit / necessity to everyone. Science needs to be science. Leave the advocacy out.

I will now ‘pass wind’ before it becomes prohibited under ‘global warming’ gas regulations.

Whenever I see this stuff and it’s based on the actions of irrational professors I immediately want to start digging into their other work. Incompetence in the simple stuff means there are bigger issues with the more complex.

It has been known for years that living in cities causes lung cancer. Lung cancer rates for non-smokers in cities being almost identical to those of smokers that live in rural areas.

Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates, while smokers that live in cities have the highest. Thus it can be argued that living in a city is as dangerous as smoking.

If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.

==============================

Cause vs correlation? You make a good point.

Could it be that likely those in rural areas actually work hard and therefore exercise their respiratory and cardiac systems much more that those in the city? If someone doesn’t ‘cook the data’ perhaps we will discover that running and other activities that exercise the lungs reduces the risk of lung cancer as well as heart disease.

kim2ooo says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:34 am
If this be true:
“Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates,”
Then this can not be true:
“If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
========
I don’t see how that follows?? folks that don’t smoke and live outside of cities get almost no lung cancer. folks that don’t smoke but live in cities get lung cancer. Thus, according to climate science, lung cancer causes people to live in cities.

And the lead researcher for CARB, the one with the fraudulent credentials. Fired? Nope, suspension. Fraudulent credentials, not qualified, not a problem in Califorkingcrazy, so long as you do as you are told. Actual research, now that is a problem. We wouldn’t want our decisions clouded by evidence.

If this be true:
“Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates,”
Then this can not be true:
“If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”

Bolded

If …Non smokers that live in rural areas STILL get Lung Cancer – You can’t END lung cancer…You Can REDUCE it with your logic…but not END it. :)

“He also discovered that, as a researcher whose compensation was paid entirely by grants and other resources he acquired for the university, the funding management had been changed and his salary could not be met. Also, his grant funds were charged for an on-campus office, when UCLA’s only space allocated to him was a .4-cubic foot mailbox.

Then came the termination notice, based on university statements that his funds, which he generated but the university administered, were depleted.”

Sounds to me like a fraud has possibly been committed by the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. This should go beyond a civil suit and the police should be involved. His grant providers need also to be made aware that their moneys have been misappropriated by this department for other purposes.

Anthony and mods
I love the site.
I think you forget that an IP address associated with UEA, UVa or PSU might start a witch-hunt. I have no wish to endure the dunking stool! An email address goes to the person (the commentator) – most dot.gov, petitions etc. check this. My primary (personal) email address has (for 15 years!) been ‘throw-away’! (costs me money) . Likewise those that I use in commentary.
Lighten up! Does the commentator contribute? Is this a troll?
BTW, I’m unique. Check my comments. Others …. who knows?
Still, your gaff, your rules. I’ll live with that. Might deter useful (interesting?) comments.
Hey, y’all are good at detecting trolls.
Oh, your security may be high – but others have been compromised. I can identify spam.

Grandpa Boris says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:16 am
I have found several legitimate, serious sources of that story that don’t have the WND’s taint of idiocy and gullibility. Quoting WND on anything is like referencing the National Enquirer: sure, sometimes you’ll get a scandalous scoop before other media catches on, but 99.99% of what you’ll find there is either a rehash from legitimate media or outright nonsense.

Really? Then please provide links to them. The “attack the messenger” response, while completely failing to note ANY problem with the reporting in question, is the first and ,most telling mark of one who has nothing to support their specious claims.

WND – like every publication – has its limitations – however you present nothing to support your attack on them regarding THIS story.

In reading the story, compared with other similar stories, I found WND’s to be one of the most detailed and well supported commentaries on the issue – they outlined the issue factually and supported with numerous direct quotes.

Please share with the class here ANY part of the content of THIS WND story that supports your attack on them.

Let’s give Dr. Enstrom our support, because he’s been railroaded, but don’t say that ALL tiny particles are harmless. Plenty of evidence that diesel emissions can cause people to die earlier than they would have without diesel exposure.

I’ve spent thirty two years working at YYZ inhaling copious amounts of in-your-face diesel, jet exhaust and burnt rubber fumes.

What amazes and stuns me is the is the number of non-smoker friends/colleagues who have succumbed to lung cancer over the past five years.

I don’t believe the general public is exposed to the harmful levels of an airport ramp environment.

Stupidity is expensive. The downside is that when bad politicians and environmental zealots get into power, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

Suing the Regents of the University of California is the definitely the appropriate response, and I hope Dr. Enstrom’s award costs the taxpayers of California dearly. In the long run, it will save them (and the rest of us) much more money.

Sean @12:34 pm is absolutely right when he says:
“Sounds to me like a fraud has possibly been committed by the Department of Environmental Health Sciences. This should go beyond a civil suit and the police should be involved. His (Dr. Enstrom’s) grant providers need also to be made aware that their moneys have been misappropriated by this department for other purposes.” In this case, these bastards should be held personally accountable for this detestable conduct. I wouldn’t advocate using the EPA’s tactics of crucifying them, but I would definitely recommend making an example of them.

Oh my! I thought that name was familiar! Dr James Enstrom has b@((s of steel! He has absolutely no qualms about swimming upstream in the pursuit of truth, and he won’t back down! First time I read him, about him was back in 2006, and then again at the time of the CARB fraud. I’m still digging thru all my old files to add his wit from CARB here. I thought I’d read it here, but I know where all the WUWT files I saved are! But here’s the “complete” 2006 -2007 article links to his Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research: Combating Lysenko Pseudoscience

Certainly, climate change peer review has shown many cases of pal review, of obstruction of dissidents, and as Steve McIntyre has pointed out, reviewers never asking for data or code, just taking at trust how the researcher got to the findings. My sense is that level of trust is pretty common across different subject areas as well.

And you also cite political masters, in this case, either EPA at the federal level (the source of almost all US PM2.5 research dollars) or California counterparts.

So, should we conclude that all peer reviewed research, across the board, is trash? If it isn’t, and the field isn’t climate science, how can we decide whether it is trash without looking at it, or whether we should give a study a serious look?

The study showing black carbon to be 4 to 9 times worse that PM2.5 mass per se was not funded by EPA, it was funded by the Dutch ministry of the Environment. My sense is that the Europeans are serious about differentiating toxicity among PM2.5 components, for health reasons, while the US EPA is not, because EPA can justify on “cost benefit” grounds so many regulations, if any type of particle will kill you, and if each death, even if it comes a day or a week earlier than it would otherwise have come (in the case of people already very ill), is valued at $9.5 million per death.

You may recall the recent EPA ruling on mercury? The actual harm from mercury was valued at between half a million $ and $6 million (with an M) — the best EPA could come up with is that total US intelligence would increase by a aggregate total of 512 IQ points if US mercury emissions from power plants were reduced by 90%. That came to two one thousandths of an IQ point per affected child.

The rule costs about $10 billion (with a B). As Fred Berple points out, unemployment also results in premature death, and $10 B in costs will create unemployment, and there are cross-elasticities which would enable estimating the increase in unemployment. EPA does not calculate the increase in unemployment because of increased costs of electricity, which are large — they only calculate jobs lost at coal plants, vs. jobs gained in making pollution control equipment.

If the benefits are so tiny, how does EPA then justify these costs?

EPA shows “cost-effectiveness” not just by failing to include costs of unemployment due to higher electricity prices. More importantly, EPA claims that any and all tiny particles (not black carbon) reduced by the technologies needed to control mercury kill people, and that enough deaths were thereby avoided that the benefits of the rule (called “co-benefits) were worth over $100 billion (with a B), using the figure of $9.5 million benefit per death.

So if EPA had to look at the toxicity of each particle, they might not be able to justify their rules.

Europeans — on this issue, not as a general matter — understand the importance of reducing black carbon, and not PM2.5 mass generally, to benefit public health. That is why no study by US researchers, or funded by the EPA, to my knowledge has ever looked at the difference in mortality of black carbon, vs. PM2.5, as the European researchers did.

A 2011 study found that reduction of black carbon, which in the US and western Europe is mainly a diesel emission, extended lives by 4 to 9 times more than reducing an equivalent amount of PM2.5 (which is the mix of all tiny particles in the air, less than 2.5 microns in diameter).

So, by eliminating diesel emissions one lives 4-9 hours longer instead of just one hour longer?

You point out the number of non-smoking friends and colleagues who have succumbed to lung cancer over the years. Is it possible that exposure to diesel exhaust, over the years, might have something to do with that? What else would account for increases in lung cancer in non-smokers, unless you assume that lung cancer occurs at a fairly consistent rate among people who aren’t exposed to anything that might cause mutations in the lung? Is is possible that most to all of these lung cancer deaths are spontaneous mutations? It can’t be ruled out, but it seems to me that if toxins in the air are biologically active and act in similar ways to tobacco smoke, then I favor the idea of causation, in this case.

There are many studies which associate lung cancer with diesel exhaust. EPA doesn’t control the budget for cancer research, so US research showing strong associations between lung cancer and diesel exhaust DOES exist. Here is a recent study:

I don’t blame anyone on this thread if they are skeptical of ANY environmental science these days. I find myself always asking questions about each study I read. But I haven’t been able to bring myself to say that all environmental science is lousy. I think that the way EPA gets away with still assuming that all PM2.5 is equally harmful is that they has stonewalled and stalled on actually trying to seriously look at the subject. The studies they fund work at the edges of what they need to know, but never go directly to the question of comparative toxicity. The EU study I cited in my first post DOES go directly to this issue.

For most of my lifetime I’ve been subjected to a “trusted” cadre of news sources that have been found to be corrupt. Whenever someone asks me for my source, I tell them their complicity with the fraud warrants no response.

kim2ooo says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:59 am
“If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
If …Non smokers that live in rural areas STILL get Lung Cancer – You can’t END lung cancer…You Can REDUCE it with your logic…but not END it. :)
=======
Had I said:
“To end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
I would agree with you. However, that isn’t what I said.
“want to end” is a desire, which is logically consistent with impossibility.

Just wanted to point out that some of the people who responded to the request for comments who were critical of the report were academics. The point is that there are many in academia who value their objective and independent role in science and whose results are not influenced by the source of their research funds. In fact, my experience has been that this is much more the rule than the exception in most fields of research (I don’t know about climate science, but based on publicly disclosed problems, the value of objectivity and avoiding bias seems less than in other fields).

It has been known for years that living in cities causes lung cancer. Lung cancer rates for non-smokers in cities being almost identical to those of smokers that live in rural areas.

Non smokers that live in rural areas have the lowest lung cancer rates, while smokers that live in cities have the highest. Thus it can be argued that living in a city is as dangerous as smoking.

If you really want to end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.
——–
The problem is the EPA and other folks who are supporting “rewilding” (basically giving
most of the land back to the flora and fauna who “own” it, more of the GAIA garbage).
Their intent is to push people into cities where everyone can drive tiny electric cars
(if any at all), and have everything in a small, controlled environment (complete with
CCTV cameras and speakers on every corner, cf. London). If cities are shown to
be more dangerous from an air pollution (or other) standpoint, all is lost from the
EPA’s point of view….hence their dim view of folks like professor Enstrom.
——
I also agree with the folks speaking about “good” and “bad” 2.5 particulates
(didn’t catch the unit, micron?, sorry). I grew up in a household with a
chain smoker (my Dad, four or more packs of unfiltered Camels a day
(smelled like camels too…as I recall….) and a Lucky Strike smoker (my Mom,
who quit in 1964 and is still here not smoking at 92). If passive smoke was
the big deal it was supposed to be, I suppose my mother, sister, and I would
be suffering for it, but so far we’re not (OK, we’ve got other problems, taxes, high
energy costs, AGW nuts, etc.). HOWEVER, I watched both my father and his
brother die painful deaths due to their smoking (black lungs and lymphoma,
among other things). I think they inhaled the “bad” 2.5s….
—–
We have TONs of diesels here in Germany, with more and more having
particulate filters (adds about 400 euros to the cost of the car, and
eventual maintenance costs and occasional ugly burning smells when the
particulate filter is burning off its debris. Supposedly they help, but
cars/trucks/diesel locomotives/tractors/etc. are only part of the problem.
The greens keep focusing on only a small part of the problem, usually
the one where the “solution” is most damaging to the economy, and
most expensive to the taxpayers….sigh…seems like California is heading
down the same path, unfortunately….
—–
Any chance to get the College/University accreditation folks involved with
this, especially considering that fraud may have been committed?
—–
I read WND too, as a counterbalance to SFGate (former Gleick hangout)
and other CA media on the far left of the scale, in hope that the truth
lies somewhere in between. If nothing else, it makes for interesting reading….

George Smith wrote, “EPA clings to the notion that any tiny particle, regardless of biological activity, chemical or physical makeup, will cause mortality” ……..”””

Well no michael, I most certainly did not say that or anything like it. That was posted by John; and I merely quoted him, with my usual “””””…..Whatever………””””” delimiters, so it is quite clear I was pasting someone else’s work. I may agree with what John said as to the EPA stance; generally did anyway; but you need to determine, who actually says stuff; so they get the credit fo it.

John says:
June 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm
To Ian at at 9:58 am, and to Fred Berple:

And you also cite political masters, in this case, either EPA at the federal level (the source of almost all US PM2.5 research dollars) or California counterparts.
So, should we conclude that all peer reviewed research, across the board, is trash? If it isn’t, and the field isn’t climate science, how can we decide whether it is trash without looking at it, or whether we should give a study a serious look?
The study showing black carbon to be 4 to 9 times worse that PM2.5 mass per se was not funded by EPA, it was funded by the Dutch ministry of the Environment. My sense is that the Europeans are serious about differentiating toxicity among PM2.5 components, for health reasons, while the US EPA is not, because EPA can justify on “cost benefit” grounds so many regulations, if any type of particle will kill you, and if each death, even if it comes a day or a week earlier than it would otherwise have come (in the case of people already very ill), is valued at $9.5 million per death.
{{….snip…….}}
Europeans — on this issue, not as a general matter — understand the importance of reducing black carbon, and not PM2.5 mass generally, to benefit public health. That is why no study by US researchers, or funded by the EPA, to my knowledge has ever looked at the difference in mortality of black carbon, vs. PM2.5, as the European researchers did.

You have a trusting faith in Europeans – I am one – I have had occasion to discuss emissions standards with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from various European countries. Some of them make Lisa Jackson look positively restrained. These snatched from the air figures such as “$9.5 million per death” are glibly thrown around when it suits politicians – but not when the deaths are from cold due to the cost of energy – when all of a sudden its OK as these are old people and have very low QALYS (look it up people you’ll need to know yours if you want medical care in future). From the Guardian (most probably a News Outlet you admire) ” Cold homes will kill up to 200 older people a day, warns Age UK; Rising energy bills will put millions at risk from ‘fuel poverty gap'”http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/22/older-people-cold-energy-bills
But those old people won’t cost $9.5M each will they? Selective costs of death are the things of ‘death panels’ – but you have to use them equally in all areas John not just in your pensée du jour.

Another word you should learn satisficing look it up – in the real world you cannot optimize everything – you have to come to a compromise that gets each area as close as possible to an optimum – a ‘Nash Equilibrium’. In your concentration on reducing PM2.5 you reduce the quality of life of the population so that deaths from other causes rise. They could easily swamp your ‘projected’ PM2.5 death rate – will you apologize to the dead from these other causes or do they not matter? As you are aware this was the outcome of professor Enstrom’s research – more people would die due to the over concentration on reduction of PM2.5s.

There are many areas of life where Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien’ (or Il meglio è l’inimico del bene). Everyone wants their drains to be clean – but there comes a level at which further cleaning to sterile levels is of no benefit, indeed the money and effort required to continually sterilize the drains will be at the expense of other areas that need to be brought to an acceptable level. This fixation on one area at the expense of others is either an obsessive compulsive disorder – OR – a political strategy. In this case, it would appear we are witnessing a political strategy – a third way.

Whoops! Sorry George and John. My error! :/ Let’s see if I can do better with this one:

John ( I hope! ) wrote “Certainly, climate change peer review has shown many cases of pal review, of obstruction of dissidents, and as Steve McIntyre has pointed out, reviewers never asking for data or code, just taking at trust how the researcher got to the findings. ” and I’d like to respond by saying, Yep. Again, exactly the same thing with secondhand smoke “science.” See the “obstruction of dissidents” at:

“Pal review” is also very common in this field. Once you know the various players you are always able to spot them in instances where the peer reviewers are identified openly. It’s one huge ball game of “You OK my work, and I’ll OK your work!” over and over again.

My experience with peer review outlined in that ACSH piece shows that it can have some value in pointing out possible weaknesses to a journal editor or committee, and can help researchers strengthen initial pieces that may be weak, but that it really doesn’t go much beyond that: the journal editors decide what they like and what they don’t like and then just use the peer review process to help them along with justifying their bias or getting the smudged apples polished up. It’s a VERY limited tool and is held in far too high a regard by journalists and the general public.

– MJM
P.S. John, I also just wanted to say that the cost of mercury perfection being balanced against a national IQ change of 512 points is brilliant. Amazing. I’ll bet a single airing of a Jerry Springer episode does more damage than that!

Had I said:
“To end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
I would agree with you. However, that isn’t what I said.
“want to end” is a desire, which is logically consistent with impossibility.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aha! O’kay :)
I’m studying logic questions etc so that I can get a good score on tests like SAT.
Wondering by the time I’m ready for College if there will be any left untouched by the likes of Mr Mann and this UCLA group, etc?

This is just an appalling state of affairs….. science is now so corrupted with politics that the body of knowledge it now represents is so tangled with errors, yet so tightly guarded by politically correct gatekeepers, that it will be generations before the pursuit of knowledge is accessible to those gifted with inquiring minds.

Every time you think climate academia has hit the bottom, it manages to find a lower low.
_____________________________
At this point I rate (all) scientists slightly below used car salesmen. At least you already know a used car salesman is probably lying but you have the option of taking the vehicle to a good mechanic before buying. So it is time to knock scientists off their pedestal and treat them like you would a used car salesman who refuses to allow a mechanic to inspect the vehicle he is selling. When publishing, if ALL data, computer programs… are not release the paper should not be accepted for publication PERIOD!

Please reread my posts, especially this part: “Europeans — on this issue, not as a general matter — understand the importance of reducing black carbon, and not PM2.5 mass generally, to benefit public health.”

I carefully limited praise ONLY for European research on black carbon, not on global warming or CO2. I am well aware of the shocking way in which EU governments — and the US government, to a slightly lesser degree than, say, the UK government — keep raising the price of energy for people who need energy to survive, or at least live reasonably comfortably. Is the correct phrase “Barmy”?

Yes, I know about QALYs — quality adjusted life years. Basically, instead of saying that one statistical life is worth $9.5 million, you break it down to a valuation per year. If you did that for PM2.5, the benefits of most of EPA’s air rules would fall by a factor of 10 or more, even before looking at whether there are differential toxicities among particles. The Quality Adjusted part is more controversial, but not that much more — it basically says that a year when you are healthy is worth more than a year when you are infirm, near the end of your life.

FYI, EPA has been “studying” QALYs for two decades, but can’t seem to go beyond study. Sounds like much of the same in Europe.

I have trouble assessing the underlying facts and their significance from this kind of article. It’s driven by what looks like some conservative activist organizations with a talent for spin and that means I get suspicious about things not told or things misrepresented.

Rick says:————————-
June 16, 2012 at 9:30 am
Unfortunately, the requirements and rules for diesel burning trucks that are drawn up in California spread throughout North America. The manufacturers have found that many of these requirements are not attainable. Caterpillar was forced to withdraw from the North American truck engine market because they felt they couldn’t meet the new standards. Trucking firms across North America will tell you that dependability and fuel economy have suffered because of these new rules and wonder if the ultimate aim of California regulators is to curtail any commerce that moves by truck.
—————————————————————————————
Why not ban ALL diesels and kerosene particulate spewing engines. RIGHT NOW. No train locomotives , no ships in LA or San Francisco, no navy, no air force, no back up generators so all the food will spoil first power failure, no diesel pusher motor homes, no diesel gen sets for Hollywood sets, no diesel for emergency lighting on the freeways and elsewhere, no diesel buses, no diesel garbage trucks or other City vehicles, no Greyhound buses, no tractors to till and harvest crops, no transport trucks (94% of US goods are moved by diesel), no construction equipment so no construction work, no ferries, no tugboats …. basically all industry in California would come to a halt.

Problem solved. Everyone in California will be dead or in Oregon and Nevada in a week \sarc off.

People really have no clue about the resources and services our economy depends on.

The biggest problems with particulate matter comes deserts and outdated agricultural practices which affect much larger areas of the planet. Maybe we should ban agriculture and deserts too …. make it a priority in Rio. \2nd level sarc off

It is obvious isn’t it? Lazy teenager is lazy in that he does not understand the article and instead of learning about what is being discussed he just lobs it away as a “conservative activist organization with a talent for spin.”

Of course, most of the time he does not admit to both not understanding the article and also talking about how its wrong in the same post, but ya know, even the trolls slip up from time to time. One might ask how can someone form an opinion about something they can not understand, but shrug as I laugh at this nonsense I learned long ago to just ignore such logical fallacies and laugh at the trolls. Its the best we can do after all huh?

The July 2012 issue of PopSci is depressingly in the can for climate change.

Popular Science is in the can for climate change period. Not just the July 12th issue. I’ve been receiving it for the last couple of years and they had zilch on the liberation of the East Anglia info.

I no longer pay for it but still receive it because I canceled the credit card I used to sign up for a subscription and they keep sending it along with a bill in the mail every so often. I don’t even bother reading it anymore.

The editor is the typical progressive with the smug countenance & wire rimmed glasses. AKA the Kieth Olberman look.

The University got rid of a Professor with 35 years commitment to the institution – for no reason, yet the admitted liar Hien Tran is STILL employed. He received a slap on the wrist – 60 day suspension and 2 grade demotion.

zefal says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:30 pm
I no longer pay for it but still receive it because I canceled the credit card I used to sign up for a subscription and they keep sending it along with a bill in the mail every so often.

Proof that the “progressive” mindset — ignore the evidence and keep repeating the actions in hopes that something will change — has taken over in every department. Either that, or they’re fudging the circulation numbers to keep their advertisers.

A mag with realists in charge would have sent you a notice that, unless you forked over the coinage to continue your subscription, you had just received your last issue — and then offered you a discount on your renewal for being a valued customer.

A. Scott – the UC review was an eye opener. The bad guy gets a smack on the wrist, while the good guy gets fired.

California is going bankrupt because of its obsession with implementing pointless, unnecessary, expensive and industry hostile green initiatives. This document clearly illustrates the moral corruption among opinion forming academics in California.

The legal case is being handled by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). They have an excellent track record of bitch-slapping universities that try to shut down free speech in all its forms (mostly suppressing free speech due to bogus PC concerns). Their web page provides a great deal of background on this case and is probably more reliable than WND.

LazyTeenager says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm
“…looks like some conservative activist organizations with a talent for spin and that means I get suspicious about things not told or things misrepresented.”

“Soon afterward, a Union-Tribune editorial writer confirmed allegations that Hien T. Tran – the lead scientist and coordinator of the study used to justify the stringent new diesel regulations – had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California Davis. Instead, it turned out, Tran had a mail-order Ph.D. sent to him from a “university” based at a mailbox at a UPS office in New York City – and that senior air board officials knew this before the Dec. 12 vote.”

Why is no one in jail?

“The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards.”

Fraud, racketeering and extortion (of tax dollars).
Welcome to the Modern Scientific Community.

Like Islamist are often (justifiably so) annoyed w/ being classified as terrorist extremists…If you are a scientist and don’t like being painted as a fraud, you (the community) need to speak up, denounce and root out the perpetrators.

LazyTeenager says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm
“I have trouble assessing the underlying facts and their significance……. ”

Yes, from your various comments, many here have noted this difficulty of yours. It is a ‘trouble’ endemic in intellectually lazy individuals and a thin camouflage for those that embrace the school of sophistry. We see it in the #occupymeh folks, many of the self labeled ‘environmentalists’, and similar populist supporters of the AGW meme. It is an odd juxtaposition that, in an age of technological enlightenment, lazy and deceitful minds have wrought an intellectual dark age of unparalleled depth and breadth. We hope to change that.

You can ‘fix’ ignorance. That is the mission of WUWT and we offer our sincere ‘Thank You!’ to Anthony Watts for this open forum of scientific discussions.

You can’t ‘fix’ stupid. But you can vote them out of office, cut funding to their foolish enterprises, and revoke their senselessly destructive contributions to our government bureaucracies, regulations, and dictatorial orders! That’s a fact. If we can substantially achieve it this November, it will be so significant that even the intellectually lazy and ineffectively veiled sophists will be able to assess the results without difficulty.
MtK

A. Scott – the UC review was an eye opener. The bad guy gets a smack on the wrist, while the good guy gets fired.

California is going bankrupt because of its obsession with implementing pointless, unnecessary, expensive and industry hostile green initiatives. This document clearly illustrates the moral corruption among opinion forming academics in California.

Thanks Rob!
I’ve tears leaking out of the corners of my eyes, I was laughing so hard!

I’m a survivor of a stage 4 throat cancer. When I was diagnosed, the doc told me “You don’t fit the profile…but you have it.” An exceedingly talented surgeon cut the cancer out (and more), repaired my throat with muscle from my neck, and stitched me up so neatly that the extensive scars are barely visible today. Tracheotomy, PEG feeding tube, chemotherapy intravenous port extending from the port at elbow to just above the heart in the vein, chemo and radiation treatments that had me sick 4 days our of 7 and ‘cooked’ my esophageal upper sphincter so I couldn’t swallow my own spit let alone food for 8 months, learning how to swallow without aspirating food or liquids again – It was ‘scary bullshit’ indeed! I’m 7 years past that ugliness but laugh every time someone expresses surety that ‘science knows what causes cancers’. To be fair, there is greater science and knowledge associated with understanding cancer than there is associated with climatology and yet, we know so little of both that the predictive capabilities of their models remain little better than random chance.

I’ll share that little ditty with several friends that have survived similar bouts with cancer.. and one that is struggling with it now.

@ Robin says:June 16, 2012 at 8:56 amWhen public policy is a form of rent seeking and you need academia to play along, the pressure on these profs is enormous. Instead of “Pay to Play”, it is “Play along or find another career.” And if you play life can be good at the expense of others.

What is the world wide average for dying of old age period? & With or without particulates . . . ????
Did anyone account for the fact that the shock “Dot.Com Bomb” may contributed to death rates among the elderly or that there were other factors? & if so, how were those considerations taken into account??? . . . . . & with and without the particulates?????

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to again offer my sincere apology to CARB’s ace scientist Mr. Hien Tran (sorry, I mean DOCTOR Tran). I have in previous posts referred to the distinguished doctor as a “diploma mill dropout.” However it appears he did in fact successfully purchase his doctoral degree from the diploma mill. I regret the error.

According to the law, appointments to the CARB Scientific Review Panel are supposed to be for just 3 years, to introduce new ideas into the process and try to prevent ossified junk science group think and religious zealotry from turning CARB into a terrorist hit squad bent on destroying the California economy. (…yeah, how’s that working out?)

John Froines has been allowed to sit on the panel for 28 years, and remains there still, according to the CARB website.

Why? And who is John Froines?

Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Lee Weiner and JOHN FROINES, The Chicago Seven, were charged with conspiracy, inciting to riot and other offenses for their activities at the 1968 democratic convention in Chicago. Froines, the chemist, was charged with with making incendiary devices. Then he decided to dedicate his time to revolutionary causes including “link[ing] up with the Black Panther Party … to build a revolutionary movement to end American imperialism.”

So this domestic terrorist Froines is running environmental policy in California.

Heh, regarding Froines and the “scientists” you find yourselves up against in this battle, you may find it enlightening to see the players (some of them cross-pollinated I’m sure) on the battlefield next door. Here’s a project I’ve been working on with some mainly Euro-folks over the last few weeks:

Click on the Anti Advocates over in the left hand side bar and you’ll see hauntingly similar tales of personnel. (I actually contributed only a little to the writing on the Advocates page, although I’m currently still doing some editing work on it. Only edited up to “G” so far! LOL!)